Quite a few times a note is placed on a subdivision map that says that a C/L position was " Established by ties per FB xxx Page yyy".
I think that the county and City of Los Angeles should require the tie dimensions used to be shown on the map.
I just came upon a situation where a PM that recorded a few years ago had notations like this in a few positions. I know where the ties are for these positions since I had located the same ones last Saturday and what is noted on the PM does not agree with the real world.
One tie in particular, the only one that has a dimension, is showing 17.69' from the tie to a metal shank. The PM calls the shank a "spike" and the measured dimension is 17.78'.
The difference may not seem like much but for the establishment that I have to do, the 0.09' does make a difference on where the line falls into place.
Aside from that, if a surveyor is going to make an establishment note using ties, then show the measured tie dimensions on the map.
Paul, a recent post on the CLSA Forum (entire thread link below). I think we are on the same page!
Possible solution...
Assuming the consensus is that a CR or ROS is needed, what do all of you think about actually showing details of the L,T&T centerline ties on the final map or parcel map. On the surface it appears to be the best solution. It saves a separate CR or ROS document from being prepared because it is now exempt from a CR or ROS because the notations are properly shown on the final/parcel map (PLS 8773.4(b)(2). It places all the accessory monument evidence of those ties in the records of the County Surveyor along with the record that shows the actual centerline monument (i.e. the final map or parcel map) because all subdivision maps must be kept on file with the County Surveyor. It also would relieve City Engineers in cities that require them by local ordinance of maintaining separate "Centerline Tie Sheet" records for future subdivisions (only manage what has been filed to date). If they want to continue adding them to their inventory, then they can add an index number to the recorded final/parcel map and use the map as the "Centerline Tie Sheet" notes.
What are the down sides?
> Paul, a recent post on the CLSA Forum (entire thread link below). I think we are on the same page!
Yes we sure area.
> Assuming the consensus is that a CR or ROS is needed, what do all of you think about actually showing details of the L,T&T centerline ties on the final map or parcel map. On the surface it appears to be the best solution.
This definately should be done on all maps. I have been showing ties on my RS and some CR for some time.
> It saves a separate CR or ROS document from being prepared because it is now exempt from a CR or ROS because the notations are properly shown on the final/parcel map (PLS 8773.4(b)(2).
If a surveyor is leaving footsteps, then show all of them..not just a few.
In my OP I mentioned a 0.09' difference. What I did not say was the line needed to be extended about 400 feet. I also did not say (due to time constraints earlier) that I did find the S&W that the PM civil placed for street C/L, and accepted it but his monuments just agrees with the monumentation south of the S&W. If that line is produced N'ly it misses a L/T C/L prod (1927 ties in shifting pavement and curbs) by about 0.4'...
I really do not like to discover fudging on maps. If the tie distance is 17.78' then please do not show it as 17.69', which is a record value.
Dennis..let me add
That I would like to see ties shown on any Tract, PM or RS that establishes a point or intersection from previously existing ties and not ones that would be set to tie out a monument that will be installed per the Tract or PM. Centerline tie notes are fine for that, but it would be a big plus to see on a new Tract or PM but the normal 8 1/2" x 11" tie sheet that is submitted to the angency for a new subdivision should also be prepared and filed.
one problem i have with LA county is that land development checks the centerline tie notes.
so the map records and we go out and set the "to be set" c/l monuments and ties. land development checks the tie notes and then asks us to make corrections. we make the corrections. thats fine. but then we submit the c/l tie notes to survey not to land development and survey want more corrections. somehow survey and land development need to check it all at once so we don't have to go back and forth so many times.
>so we don't have to go back and forth so many times.
I would guess that the reason you are doing extra work on ties is that they are being submitted with inadequate or incorrect data or not according to LD/Survey format.
i don't mind making the corrections. i just wish both LD/survey would check it together. instead of LD checking it and okaying it then survey checking it and wanting more changes.
> i don't mind making the corrections. i just wish both LD/survey would check it together. instead of LD checking it and okaying it then survey checking it and wanting more changes.
Well..if you are following the standard format and are providing the correct information in the quantity that the county wants and are still having a problem, speak with Steve Stienhoff about the matter and quit being pushed around by county tie checkers, if that's the case.
to tell you the truth i wish just survey would check it and give an okay to LD for releasing any monument bonds and such.
Speaking of Land Development
I think (not sure) that Dennis Hunter works in that department.
Speaking of Land Development
twkoh,
email me your phone number. I will discuss with my staff and the Survey Division supervisor to get to the root of the problem. Also attach one of your tie note sheets if you don't mind.
Speaking of Land Development
:good: :good: Dennis!!